Recruiting: So far ranked last in ACC

[bigmike]

You can count on me to fill up 1.25x of my seat for each home game next year.

 

[CuseMan4]

It is literally impossible to predict how a kid will do in college. Yeah getting a 5 star would be nice, I don’t think you will find anyone complaining about that or saying stars don’t matter then lol

However there are so many factors that go into a successful college player.

1) how dedicated to the game are they
2) how dedicated are they to the mental development of the game
3) how dedicated are they to the physical development of the game
4) their surroundings
5) outside influences (parents, family, friends, significant other, etc)
6) school work
7) night life
8) homesickness
9) teammates/team chemistry
10) system they are playing in (coaching)
11) injury
12) depth chart
13) a kid from the same class could be better than what the coaches thought

These are only a FEW of the things that factor into how a kid performs on the field. Some factors mean more depending on the player. My point is it’s literally impossible to predict how a kid will play once they touch the field in college. You might get a good gauge but recruiting services, Dino, Saban, doesn’t matter. All will have gems and busts in every class.

 

[Dino2112]

Not to mention, these kids haven’t played their senior seasons yet.

look at the linebacker we just landed. That kids play far outshines the low three star he’s currently graded at. Our building issue in recruiting will be retaining the under the radar talent that top 10 schools catch onto by their senior years. This becomes easier to combat when you string together winning seasons.

I thought the RB/LB from MD looked like a better ILB than a RB but i dont watch alot of tape

 

[Dino2112]

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at but there are approximately 1,300 three star players in any given recruiting class.

As of now now 2 * unlike the last 10 years ( Pitts killing it this year) I'm kinda happy with a no 2* year

 

[SoBristol]

Let’s not take it to an extreme. There are plenty of recruits who are sure things from the day they arrive, and the staff knew what they had when the kids signed. Dungey, Taj Harris, Servais, Trill Williams, Cisco — and in past decades, guys like Monk, Morris, McNabb. There are others who bring obvious metrics in size, speed and stellar high school performance — the ones every program tries to get to visit.

Of course, there are other example (a large group) when development in the program makes the difference.

 

[Oakland]

Are you saying that, of the top 73 ranked safeties, Cisco was the one Dino wanted most?

72 safeties were ranked higher than Cisco in the 2018 class.

I'll take Dino's evaluation over some recruiting site bums.

 

[Franz69]

Are you saying that, of the top 73 ranked safeties, Cisco was the one Dino wanted most?

No, I'm saying the recruiting sites don't know their ass from their elbow.

 

[FloridaFan]

Are you saying that, of the top 73 ranked safeties, Cisco was the one Dino wanted most?

Possibly. Coaches dont aim first for the number one safety down to 73. Cisco could quite easily have been one of our top 3 wants at safety

 

[billsin01]

Maybe even top twenty.

I'm telling you -- and my memory has failed me before -- but I followed this stuff like crazy back in the mid-90s and 2000s and it always shocked me but I swear we wound up in the high 20s, 30s and 40s, mostly high 20s/30s. But we only hit top 25 with that 98 class, which wound up being a massive dud ultimately, at least relative to the great classes before that. We clearly had top 25 talent, but we were not recognized that way.

 

[qdawgg]

Yeah, I can see this argument and I don't really deny it. If you want to grab alabama or clemson or some others you're going to see good recruiting rankings line up with good records.

But I, perhaps not terribly effectively, was trying to point out that stars don't equate to wins if there are issues and, vice versa, if things are in order you can win games without having big star ratings.

So in one respect Michigan is indeed an outlier. That there are plenty of schools with good recruiting classes according to the services that also win a ton of games. I get that. But my point is those services don't predict when things are going to go south.

Texas is another great example -- I went back and looked at their recruiting classes starting in 2007. They had two *down* years in which they finished 17th and otherwise finished in the top 8 wiht several classes ranked 2 or 3. Yet they haven't lost fewer than four games since 2009 and they have had four 7-loss seasons in that span. Really? With, quite literally, the best or second-best aggregate talent in that span?

Notre Dame is another -- They had a brutal class that ranked 39th in 2005, but they rebounded with 6th best class in 06, the 5th best class in 07, yet those two classes never lost fewer than 5 games.

09, 10 and 11 USC lands top three classes -- the following three years they lose a combined 14 games. Still pretty solid, obviously, but they should have been playing at the level Carroll had them playing -- losing maybe a game or two each season.

Oregon -- class rankings in 13-15: 19, 21, 16. Record in 14-16 when those guys make up the bulk of the roster? 20-18.

It works the other way too:

Washington State -- just finished 11-2 and top 10 in the country. Best class in the past 10 seasons or so? 42. Currently ranked 65th.

What do all those schools have in common? They went through coaching and general program issues in that span (and/or they found a good coach/system and found success).

The bottom line is you need talented kids but you absolutely need to develop them and feed them into a good system. Those latter two functions, to me, are far more important.

Yeah, I don’t think we actually disagree with anything at all. My only point is, you won’t find a team at the bottom of their conference in recruiting rankings year after year AND competing in their conference. You will find teams that underachieve their rankings. But the rankings are at least some gauge, if you are constantly last/close to last in your conference, You aren’t going to consistently be winning and competing year after year.

Now in saying all that, I trust the coaches judgement on a player 100% more then a recruiting service. Assuming that coach is Babers/staff. But you can’t completely discount recruiting rankings in your conference. I’ve never seen a team win consistently year after year and always finish in the bottom in recruiting.

 

[billsin01]

Yeah, I don’t think we actually disagree with anything at all. My only point is, you won’t find a team at the bottom of their conference in recruiting rankings year after year AND competing in their conference. You will find teams that underachieve their rankings. But the rankings are at least some gauge, if you are constantly last/close to last in your conference, You aren’t going to consistently be winning and competing year after year.

Now in saying all that, I trust the coaches judgement on a player 100% more then a recruiting service. Assuming that coach is Babers/staff. But you can’t completely discount recruiting rankings in your conference. I’ve never seen a team win consistently year after year and always finish in the bottom in recruiting.

I think a lot of folks are missing the nuance of the argument which is not that it's pointless to sign 4/5 star kids. If we sign 22 4/5 star kids, I'm thrilled and we can all be excited. It's more that we haven't signed a class with even 10 of those kids and we are unlikely to do so AND that if you sign all those guys but 5 never make it to campus, two get injured, three don't pan out and a couple have grade/discipline issues that changes the class. Or if you have shafer running the show and the s&C isn't great and the system is antiquated or whatnot, you're not going to see that translate onto the field very well.

As far as 3-star/2-star kids, I just don't know how it would be possible for site to truly rank these kids. Coaches have a much better idea of what they want and then they are tasked with molding and developing those kids.

Therefore, IMO, worrying too much about stars is kind of like worrying about what brand is on a product instead of how the product actually performs.

 

[IthacaMatt]

It is literally impossible to predict how a kid will do in college. Yeah getting a 5 star would be nice, I don’t think you will find anyone complaining about that or saying stars don’t matter then lol

However there are so many factors that go into a successful college player.

1) how dedicated to the game are they
2) how dedicated are they to the mental development of the game
3) how dedicated are they to the physical development of the game
4) their surroundings
5) outside influences (parents, family, friends, significant other, etc)
6) school work
7) night life
8) homesickness
9) teammates/team chemistry
10) system they are playing in (coaching)
11) injury
12) depth chart
13) a kid from the same class could be better than what the coaches thought

These are only a FEW of the things that factor into how a kid performs on the field. Some factors mean more depending on the player. My point is it’s literally impossible to predict how a kid will play once they touch the field in college. You might get a good gauge but recruiting services, Dino, Saban, doesn’t matter. All will have gems and busts in every class.

Of course it's a crap shoot with every kid. There are no guarantees in life.
But 4 star and 5 star talent has a better chance of excelling, even taking all those risks into consideration.
Talent does matter, and it is discernible. Three star klds are all over the map in terms of whether they will be contributors (probably 50/50), but 4 star kids are probably 60-70%, all things considered, and 5 stars are probably 80%+ that they will be contributors.

 

[CUTater]

No, I'm saying the recruiting sites don't know their ass from their elbow.

Pretty much this. You can get a pretty good feel for a prospect based on his offer list, and that plays into his star rating, but the guys running these websites don’t know any more about evaluating a prospect than a lot of guys on this board.

 

[FloridaFan]

You can’t have one 10 win season and expect 4-5 stars to line up. Those kids have been recruited by the big name schools/home town teams for 2-3 years making bowls while we were going 4-8 and losing pretty badly. Making a bowl game year in and year out gives you success that big name players will want to play in. The three stars we have pulled in have the size and speed to compete in the ACC, stars aside, which I’ll take over being 9th on 7/42 instead of 11th.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Pretty much this. You can get a pretty good feel for a prospect based on his offer list, and that plays into his star rating, but the guys running these websites don’t know any more about evaluating a prospect than a lot of guys on this board.

Football is so much harder than basketball, just because there are so many players, and success is more dependent on the performance of more people around you on your team in football than in basketball.

That said, a couple factors go into "good" rankings - there are a number of big camps where you can see elite players against each other. These camps go a long way toward national rankings between who's a 4 star vs. a 5 star.

So do offers, and measurables, and performance on the field (how many yards, sacks, TDs, interceptions, etc.) and by how successful your team is - state champs, regional champs, etc.

It's not all random. The data for good reviewers comes from actual sources and data points, not just highlights videos (which everybody does nowadays). Sustained success from elite high school and prep programs also factors into the ratings.

If you're an elite program, like St. Thomas Aquinas down in Florida, or IMG, well, those kids are going to be well coached and terrific athletes. Winning year after year breeds winning culture at these schools. You want those kids because they understand the commitment required to be successful.

Some people manipulate rankings for subscription purposes, as many people who have been on this board for a while know. Others do their best, especially the "name" recruitniks. In hoops, there is a certain group of guys who have been doing it for a long time, and who you see at the big events. In football, as I said, it's harder to get so much elite talent together so that you can really separate the "very good" from the "eilte".

And, as someone who has swum in those waters on the hoops side, I can tell you that most people who do rankings are wannabe sports writers or hardcore fans who really love doing what they do. People like Tomcat, for instance - he's such a student of all the football stuff, throughout the program. from recruiting to practically every aspect of the program. The level of detail he puts into his football work - along with several people on the football board - is just outstanding.

A lot of guys out there doing serious rankings just love to do it, and they mostly honestly try their best to get it right. Because they have to defend those rankings to their readers, friends, colleagues and detractors! My two cents.

 

[longislandcuse]

I’ve seen what Dino can do with 3 star talent at WR and in the Secondary. I’m sure that we will start attracting more 4 star talent after sustained winning. Not worried about this, yet.

What does have me worried is the QB position and how that has unfolded this cycle. Not in panic mode, but I don’t get the warm fuzzies with losing out on TVD, along with what’s transpired with Villeux.

 

[gbo]

You can count on me to fill up 1.25x of my seat for each home game next year.

Username checks out

 

[FloridaFan]

I’ve seen what Dino can do with 3 star talent at WR and in the Secondary. I’m sure that we will start attracting more 4 star talent after sustained winning. Not worried about this, yet.

What does have me worried is the QB position and how that has unfolded this cycle. Not in panic mode, but I don’t get the warm fuzzies with losing out on TVD, along with what’s transpired with Villeux.

CV was already a class of 2021 who had the option of going 2020. I don’t blame him for wanting an extra year before he has to decide

 

[longislandcuse]

CV was already a class of 2021 who had the option of going 2020. I don’t blame him for wanting an extra year before he has to decide

Oh, I don’t either, but it sounds like he was a strong lean Cuse if he did. Gets a little more dicey in ‘21.

Hopefully we have another strong season and the sell becomes even easier.

 

[bigmike]

Username checks out

More a swipe at the size of our seats, but not an unfair comment.

 

[Dino2112]

I think a lot of folks are missing the nuance of the argument which is not that it's pointless to sign 4/5 star kids. If we sign 22 4/5 star kids, I'm thrilled and we can all be excited. It's more that we haven't signed a class with even 10 of those kids and we are unlikely to do so AND that if you sign all those guys but 5 never make it to campus, two get injured, three don't pan out and a couple have grade/discipline issues that changes the class. Or if you have shafer running the show and the s&C isn't great and the system is antiquated or whatnot, you're not going to see that translate onto the field very well.

As far as 3-star/2-star kids, I just don't know how it would be possible for site to truly rank these kids. Coaches have a much better idea of what they want and then they are tasked with molding and developing those kids.

Therefore, IMO, worrying too much about stars is kind of like worrying about what brand is on a product instead of how the product actually performs.

YES its real NICE to get Prime rib but rib eye can make a great meal too

 

[RandomGuy]

YES its real NICE to get Prime rib but rib eye can make a great meal too

Same meat. Just cut and prepared different. ;-)

 

[NKR1978]

Oh, I don’t either, but it sounds like he was a strong lean Cuse if he did. Gets a little more dicey in ‘21.

Hopefully we have another strong season and the sell becomes even easier.

I feel like worst case we should be able to pick someone up on the transfer market. Kids a couple years out of high school are looking at their college search much differently.

With respect to TVD, Miami's QB situation is much more open than ours is. Tate Martell might be a bust there and I'm sure the notion of sitting behind Tommy for 2-3 years isn't appealing.

Having said that, I'll be much more nervous if we don't get one of our top guys in the next cycle.

 

[Sudano]

You're right that it's literally impossible to pick one player and guarantee how he will fair, but over time for a full class of 25 or so it's not impossible to understand the correlation between higher rated and thus more talented players (emphasis on plural) over time provides better teams.
Its like poker each card is lucky, but how you play those cards over a full tournament is skill.

 

[orangecuse]

Of course it's a crap shoot with every kid. There are no guarantees in life.
But 4 star and 5 star talent has a better chance of excelling, even taking all those risks into consideration.
Talent does matter, and it is discernible. Three star klds are all over the map in terms of whether they will be contributors (probably 50/50), but 4 star kids are probably 60-70%, all things considered, and 5 stars are probably 80%+ that they will be contributors.

No doubt! There's a reason why 'blue chip' stocks generally pay such good dividends...same deal here.